Some faculty members are concerned about the UBC Faculty Association's approach to transparency after two motions on the issue were barely discussed at last week's Annual General Meeting last week.
The first motion would have called on the Faculty Association (FA) to release an annual report containing financial information and data regarding faculty concerns and the demographics of those who file them. The second motion would have initiated an independent, external review of the FA every five years. Both motions were moved by Dr. Christina Laffin, an associate professor in the department of Asian studies.
According to written comments Dr. Jennifer Berdahl, a sociology professor, sent to The Ubyssey, the first motion was not voted on. Instead, the FA’s Executive Committee — a group of 14 elected members that govern the association — brought forward a separate motion to create a committee to review the first motion.
The motion to refer the first motion back to committee eventually passed after three hours of discussion.
The second motion, according to a statement from FA President Alan Richardson, was deferred to a discussion at the September general meeting. In the agenda, the Executive Committee recommended the motion be defeated, pointing to confidentially concerns and saying the FA's biannual elections and continuous internal review rendered external reviews redundant.
"We do want to assure our members we will protect their privacy and confidentiality when considering which statistics will be publicly reported upon regarding their interactions with their union," Richardson said. "We are also committed to ensuring whatever future processes around public reporting and review we adopt are in alignment with our responsibilities as a trade union."
Berdahl said members were given few opportunities to speak on the first motion.
“[Richardson] gave preference to executive members, staff, and lawyers over members’ voices,” she wrote.
Richardson did not address these claims in his statement.
In an interview ahead of the meeting, Berdahl expressed support for both motions. She said the first motion would ensure more accountability and transparency from the FA, and the second motion of requiring external reviews would help avoid the “inherent conflict of interest” of internal reviews.
Dr. Nisha Malhotra, a professor with the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, also voiced support for the motion ahead of the AGM. In a written statement, she said she was surprised the FA did not already collect and publish such data in reference to the first motion.
“Data would allow the association to negotiate more effectively on behalf of its members. For example, if the data on grievances filed by contract faculty supported the higher workload of sessional faculty, then the association could advocate for higher salaries for them,” she wrote.
Malhotra also wrote that the first motion would allow for the examination of whether certain groups file disproportionately more grievances with the FA — which would “provide insight into issues of inequities.”
Malhotra questioned the FA's concerns around the first motion, writing that, “UBC’s privacy policy outlines how data collection and sharing will be governed.” She added that other UBC bodies, such as the Equity & Inclusion Office, share statistics annually regarding the number of complaints they receive.
“For me, these are pretty uncontroversial motions,” Berdahl said in her interview.
— With files from Nathan Bawaan